Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

GMO corn causes liver, kidney problems in rats: study

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Mr. McD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 11:17 AM
Original message
GMO corn causes liver, kidney problems in rats: study
"It is the first time that independent research, published in a peer-reviewed journal, has proved that a GMO authorized for human consumption presents signs of toxicity," Arnaud Apoteker, a spokesman for Greenpeace France said in a statement.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=gmo-corn-causes-...

Rise and shine: the GM wake-up call

News that a variety of GM corn produced signs of liver and kidney toxicity in rats should be a wake-up call for better testing and more transparency from biotechs, if GMOs are to be accepted by increasingly sceptical consumers.

http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=75058...


New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity

http://www.springerlink.com/content/02648wu132m07804/?p...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. so they've contaminated both wheat and corn... the staples. great.
somewhere on a rock in the distant future, a galactic traveller will run across this epithet, carved in a scrawled hand:

"Humans: not too bright, overall."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. it gets worse
or perhaps you know this.

Their "contamination" actually spreads to the genetic home of corn, the maize belt in Mexico. Those pure, original strains have been contaminated as well. It's the modern day technological equivalent, IMO, of "we have eaten the seed corn."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Beam me up, Scotty

No sign of intelligent life down here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. K & R and Bookmarked: It's something we have suspected all along.
How does the old saying go? "It's not NICE to fool Mother Nature"!!!


:kick: :kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CGowen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
3. what about potatoes?
And now we have "Suppressed report shows cancer link to GM potatoes" by the deputy political editor of the Independent, about cancers and tumours in rats fed a genetically modified potato in Russia. According to the article the Russian report was released by Welsh anti-GM campaigners, after a battle to obtain it from the biotech industry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2025741,00.h...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Even the non-GM potatoes are rotten with pesticides. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. Greenpeace Europe is coming out with another study in May 2007
in this same journal: Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

From the March 2007 article: <snip> "We observed that after the consumption of MON863 Triglycerides increased by 2440% in females" Geez, makes you wonder why so many people have such high cholesterol (at such young ages) these days, doesn't it? My cholesterol was out of whack at age 31. And my thyroid was failing, I just didn't know it. FWIW, the thyroid gland health is key regulating cholesterol levels.

I wonder if this fucking GMO corn is some kind of endocrine disruptor? Betcha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. Anybody bother to read the actual article?
Because it's rather inconclusive, they say more research needs to be done. Furthermore, they didn't do any actual research themselves, they just performed a new statistical analysis on previous data that concluded the stuff was safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Oh, well, in that case, let's all just party ON, man!
Don't worry about it. Eat up. Go back to watching American Idol and Howard Stern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. As opposed to...
not actually reading the article, and making up a bunch of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories?

I'd prefer American Idol if those are my two choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
10. Precautionary principle, who needs it?
Use and Abuse of the Precautionary Principle
Peter T. Saunders, Professor of Applied Mathematics at King's College London

There has been a lot written and said about the precautionary principle recently, much of it misleading. Some have stated that if the principle were applied it would put an end to technological advance. Others claim to be applying the principle when they are not. From all the confusion, it is easy to mistake it for some deep philosophical idea that is inordinately difficult to grasp (1).

In fact, the precautionary principle is very simple. All it actually amounts to is this: if one is embarking on something new, one should think very carefully about whether it is safe or not, and should not go ahead until reasonably convinced it is. It is just common sense.

Too many of those who fail to understand or to accept the precautionary principle are pushing forward with untested, inadequately researched technologies, and insisting that it is up to the rest of us to prove them dangerous before they can be stopped. The perpetrators also refuse to accept liability; so if the technologies turn out to be hazardous, as in many cases they have, someone else will have to pay the penalty

The precautionary principle hinges on concept of the burden of proof, which ordinary people have been expected to understand and accept in the law for many years. It is also the same reasoning that is used in most statistical testing. Indeed, as a lot of work in biology depends on statistics, misuse of the precautionary principle often rests on misunderstanding and abuse of statistics. Both the accepted practice in law and the proper use of statistics are in accord with the common-sensible idea that it is incumbent on those introducing a new technology to prove it safe, and not for the rest of us to prove it harmful.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/prec.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArmchairMeme Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. Everything is connected
My first thought is of all the advertisements and "news" that the population is overweight. Surprise, surprise something in the food is causing such a large number of people to be overweight. Of course, our lifestyles have changed to be much more sedentary at the same time. Gets curiouser and curiouser. The next generation will find out the hard way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
13. GE fantasy shattered by human genome project
GE fantasy shattered by human genome project

"In everyday language the talk is about a gene for this and a gene for that. We are now finding that that is rarely so. The number of genes that work in that way can almost be counted on your fingers, because we are just not hard-wired in that way."
Craig Venter, Celera Genomics, 12 February 2001

(The address of this page is www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/GE... )

13 February 2001

Although few may have yet noticed, the primitive scientific model on which the foundations of genetic engineering have been constructed was dealt a quiet but earth-shattering blow this week with the formal publication of the base pair sequence of the human genome. That at least must be the ultimate conclusion to be drawn from what has now been revealed (see press reports below).

Although the human genome project is nominally specific to our own genetic code, the "surprising" nature of its results have much broader implications relating to science's understanding of the genome functioning of all species. The project graphically demonstrates that organism biochemistry is driven as much (if not considerably more so) by the multi-dimensional relationships between the thousands of genes involved (which are in turn symbiotically linked to the functioning of the organism as a whole in its environment), as it is by the previously assumed linear influence of individual genes which has largely dominated scientific thinking up until now.

This realisation is one which has been anticipated and highlighted by critics of genetic engineering from the outset, but which (for reasons best known to itself) large portions of the biotechnology community have chosen to ignore. It represents an implicit acknowledgement of why genetic engineering is inherently risk laden, and it is a dramatic illustration of the old common sense adage that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Current methods of modern biotechnology predominately rely on an out-of-date model of the way genes influence biological processes within an organism. Although the model espouses some limited embellishments beyond this, it has been largely a simplistic 'one-for-one' component-based model of biochemical processes.

Even though this model now has no option but to surrender to the concept of the multi-dimensional genome - where relationships rather than components predominate - there is little corrective action that genetic engineers can now take to limit the inherently large risk quotient associated with the use of recombinant DNA that has been exposed by this new understanding. This is simply because almost nothing is currently known about such relationships, despite the fact that they are ultimately responsible for the way in which all proteins in an organism (250,000 in the case of a human) are generated.

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Docum ...

The credibility of academia in general, scientists in particular, and indeed, the very role of publicly funded universities in contemporary society is being compromised by the uncritical adoption of industry agendas by academia. Tolerating or indeed contributing to the fevered momentum which is promoting GM crops in the absence of meaningful risk assessment is scientifically unsound. To do so in the face of widespread and growing consumer concern -- that is, by the people who are paying our salaries -- is incomprehensible, arrogant, and reprehensible.

This is not science. This is technology in advance of science, profit-driven applications of commercial technology unfettered by scientific understanding of basic physiology and gene function, and real world implications for society and the environment. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Death of the Central Dogma
Death of the Central Dogma

It is amazing how much scientific and religious fundamentalism have in common. The late Francis Crick won the Nobel Prize jointly with James Watson and Maurice Wilkins for working out the structure of DNA; and rather like the new Potentate of biology, issued the "Central Dogma" to the faithful, which decreed that genetic information flows linearly from DNA to RNA to protein, and never in reverse. That was just another way of saying that organisms are hardwired in their genetic makeup, and that the environment has little if any influence on the structure and function of the genes.

SNIP

Since the mid-1970s, if not before, molecular geneticists studying the genetic material have been turning up evidence that increasingly contradicts the Central Dogma. There is an immense amount of necessary cross talk between genes and the environment in the life of the organism, which not only changes the function of the genes but also the structure of the genes and genomes. By the early 1980s, the new genetics of the "fluid genome" has emerged.

SNIP

What are the latest surprises that the fluid and flexible genome has in store? One area is the importance and pervasiveness of epigenetics, specifically, chemical markings on the DNA and proteins binding to the DNA in the chromosomes that determine patterns of gene expression, or which bits of the genetic text is actually read. That is overwhelmingly determined by experience. In an earlier issue (SiS 20), we showed the mothers diet and stress can affect patterns of gene expression in the embryo and foetus, which determines the individuals health prospects much later in life.

Now, researchers are finding genes that are marked for life in rat pups, strictly by how their mothers care for them during their first week of life after birth (see "Caring mothers reduce response to stress for life", this series). It leaves one in no doubt that the environment is giving the instruction of which genes to turn on.

SNIP

All of this goes against the very grain of the Central Dogma that posits linear, mechanistic control. Instead, layers upon layers of chaotic complexity are coordinated, it seems, by mutual agreement, in an incredibly elaborate, exquisite dance of life that dances itself freely and spontaneously into being.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DCD.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. "Junk DNA"
"Junk DNA"

Over 95 percent of DNA has largely unknown function

By Jaan Suurkula M.D.

Summary

Presently, only the function of a few percent of the DNA is known, the rest has been believed to be useless garbage, commonly called "Junk DNA" by molecular biologists.

Increasing evidence is now indicating that this DNA is not "junk" at all. Especially, it has been found to have various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called "non-coding DNA" influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways.

However, the knowledge is still very incomplete about this DNA. And there is little knowledge about the relationship between non-coding DNA and the DNA of genes.

Without this knowledge it is completely impossible to foresee and control the effect of artificial insertion of foreign genes.

This is a very important reason why genetic engineering is unsuitable for commercial application. It is still at a stage of early experimentation with very incomplete understanding about its consequences. According to the ethical standards of sound science, the products of such experimentation should be strictly contained in labortories, especially as released DNA may spread indefinitely in an uncontrollable way.

http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Hmm, yes.
The Biotech industry was totally obliterated when they published the Human Genome Project six years ago.

:spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Good point
Well written and deeply analytical. Many will learn from your erudite response.

That crazy Biotech Industry certainly cares about the facts and not research dollars heh?

But thanks for confirming it's an industry and not science.

Kick?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
18. I think it has toxicity for humans and insects and animals
its Not normal

Its a Lie and its a way to get control of the food supply
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
19. christ on a crutch....
I have a paper that I made up for my biology students to review that exemplifies bad ways to do science. I think I might simply use this paper instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-06-07 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
20. Kicking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContraBass Black Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-06-07 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
21. What kind of study? Did they conduct firsthand experimentation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-06-07 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. GM Food Nightmare Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham
GM Food Nightmare Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham

Regulator agencies like the European Food Safety Authority and the UK Food Standards Agency have been ignoring the precautionary principle, manipulating and corrupting science, sidestepping the law, and helping to promote GMOs in the face of massive public opposition and damning evidence piling up against the safety of GM food and feed

These charges are made in a devastating report <1> ( GM Food Nightmare Unfolding and the Regulatory Sham ) released today by the Institute of Science in Society*. The report has been submitted to the European Food Standards Agency, the World Health Organisation/ Food and Agriculture Organisation Expert Consultation on GM Food Animals, and the UK Food Standards Agency, and it has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

The 19-page report contains more than 130 references. It draws together evidence from all over the world indicating that GM food and feed may be inherently hazardous to health, regardless of the plant species or the genetic modification involved. For example,

Female rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans gave birth to many severely stunted pups, with over half of the litter dead by three weeks, and the surviving pups were sterile; Roundup Ready soya has been approved worldwide for food and feed since 1996
Farmers and workers exposed to Bt cotton and Bt maize have suffered serious allergy-like symptoms
Livestock feeding on Bt crops and crop residues became ill and died in large numbers
The evidence has stacked up to such an extent that our regulators should be answering a charge of criminal negligence at the very least in failing to ban GM crop and continuing with their campaign of denial and disinformation, and worse, helping to promote even more dangerous GM produce from the industry, said Dr. Mae-Wan Ho. Dr Ho is the director of ISIS and lead author of the report co-authored with Joe Cummins , e meritus Professor of Biology at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, and Peter Saunders, emeritus Professor of Mathematics at King's College, London University.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Food_Nightmare_Unfolding.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-06-07 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
23. Where is that Monsanto supporter on Du when she is needed?
Edited on Fri Apr-06-07 11:24 PM by IChing
Hell, I've seen rats that built up a tolerance for rat poison.
But this causes cancer.

Just look at Tom Delay.

He is still moving around on the treadmill of politics and media
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-06-07 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
24. This is what I don't like about Greenpeace
They cherrypick their data to push their agenda. The results of the study need to be examined, and further experimentation should be down, but it doesn't mean that the food was dangerous. If you perform enough experiments, chances are that a couple will have statistically significant results that appear from chance. There has been numerous studies in the past the shown that this food is safe, so there is overwhelming more evidence showing that the food is safe to consume.

The article said that the data was inconclusive, yet Greenpeace now acted like they have proven that GMOs are dangerous, when in fact there isn't any proof. I just don't respect an organization who places their agenda above sound science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 12th 2014, 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC